Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised (thecentersquare.com)

by iamnothere 132 comments 228 points
Read article View on HN

132 comments

[−] al_borland 32d ago

> The right to opt out of its sale, and

Why the right to opt-out, instead of requiring sale of data to be opt-in?

I’m not sure how this stuff happens on the backend, but if I sign up for something and there is an opt-out page buried somewhere, I assume they’ve already sold my data by the time I can get to the opt-out page. I still make a best effort, but once it’s sold, it’s really too late. There needs to be an option to never sell it in the first place.

[−] trollbridge 32d ago
Microsoft likes to do the "opt out for the next 30 days", including uploading all my spreadsheets to Copilot to be training data.
[−] colejohnson66 32d ago
"Can we do X, Y, Z?" Yes? Or maybe later?

It's so annoying. No means no, not "pester me later"!

[−] bombcar 32d ago
Consent used to be "Yes" or "No" now it's "Yes" or "I'll give in later"
[−] salawat 32d ago
There's a reason the tech industry is said to be rapey. Such fundamental misunderstandings of consent likely do not ultimately stop at the digital.
[−] al_borland 32d ago
That would be enough to get me to spend those 30 days migrating all my spreadsheets to a new format.
[−] noir_lord 32d ago
This annoys me with Apple devices, iCloud and all it's related backups of..well everything are on by default and it doesn't ask at any point in the setup of the device.

You have to then go into settings -> icloud and disable the main one and then like 30 individual ones.

There should be a big toggle at the top that says "Disable All Cloud Backups" they can feel free to throw in a warning.

[−] pessimizer 32d ago
This wasn't even a debate two years ago. People were still complaining about Secure Boot and needing Microsoft's permission to install Linux, and about locked phone bootloaders. The fact that this "need" has been manufactured was the victory. Michigan holding back for a moment doesn't matter when they already took California, and Europe is actively hostile to privacy - advocating for it there is starting to verge on the criminal.

Now the claw is closing, and government and big tech are combining. We're either going to let this tiny inbred elite track, monitor and rule every portion of our lives, or we're not. There are no solutions through government, and there are no technical solutions.

Right now you should be buying more computers than you need and datahoarding.

It is disrespectful that they can pretend with a straight face that they've suddenly discovered privacy concerns. The people who pay them started by priming them with the best arguments and lines that their "media" guys could come up with to dismiss those concerns and to paint the people bringing them up as Chinese terrorist pedophiles. They probably just figured out that they need to wait after the midterms, eliminate a few people and get a few others in, then they could get it passed attached to something else. While they're consciously planning, we're simply reacting and ascribing to ignorance and incompetence what is far better explained by malice.

The entire purpose of these laws is to destroy privacy. It isn't churches and puritans lobbying for them. There's no visible constituency lobbying for this, just a bunch of people who have been softened into going "well, if it helps..."

People need to ask themselves who's getting this stuff done? There are so many things that 70-80% of the electorate are loudly clamoring for that can't even get acknowledged by anyone in power or in the mainstream media, but this stuff gets passed?

[−] nickslaughter02 32d ago
Pulled?

> Bill sponsors Rep. Brad Paquette, R-Niles, and Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, are now working with advocacy groups on potential replacement legislation, according to the MFEI.

https://archive.is/hI3wJ

[−] declan_roberts 32d ago
What's with the bipartisan push for these bills all of a sudden?
[−] 2OEH8eoCRo0 32d ago
Of course. Suddenly we are concerned about privacy and the catch-all strikes again.
[−] groby_b 32d ago
HTTP 451

"We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time. For any issues, e-mail us at info@franklinnews.org or call us at (847) 497-5230."

This is extremely funny given it's an article about privacy concerns :)

[−] whywhywhywhy 32d ago
This all feels coordinated towards another goal.
[−] jrm4 32d ago
For the record, I think it's important to highlight this as "hey, the system actually works" sometimes. All the fatalism and whatnot with government.
[−] nonethewiser 32d ago
If it's illegal in the United States to ask someone's age before distributing porn to them online because of the first amendment, why can physical porn stores ask for id? Is that also unconstitutional?